In conformity with the best and most complete…

I’ve been enjoying the NYT series The Stone, but not primarily for the quality of its articles, which both have been good introductory nibbles and have in general satisfied my selfish requirement: if my mother reads this, will she be assured that it is still unlikely that my discipline requires hallucinogenic drugs?

Rather, I have enjoyed the comments to the articles, for amidst the gloaming where philosophy and philosophers are condemned as of little interest, reasons glimmer like fireflies. But the writer didn’t think of…What about this?… You’ve overlooked…. Maybe this shows that instead we should…

This is officially an award-winning blog

HNN, Best group blog: "Witty and insightful, the Edge of the American West puts the group in group blog, with frequent contributions from an irreverent band.... Always entertaining, often enlightening, the blog features snazzy visuals—graphs, photos, videos—and zippy writing...."

5 comments

And Aristotle, in a certain composition Invitation of his, in which he invites the youth to philosophy, says that if you shouldn’t philosophize then you should philosophize, and if you should philosophize then you should philosophize. So in any case you should philosophize. For example, if someone says that you shouldn’t be a philosopher, they have used a demonstration, by means of which they refute philosophy. But if they have used a demonstration, then it is clear that they philosophize. For philosophy is the mother of demonstrations. And if someone says that you should be a philosopher, again they philosophize. For they have used a demonstration, by means of which they demonstrate that philosophy truly exists. So in any case one philosophizes, both the one who refutes philosophy and the one who doesn’t. For each of them has used a demonstration, by means of which the arguments are proven. But if one has used demonstrations, then it is clear that one philosophizes. For philosophy is the mother of demonstrations.

I don’t know the history behind their dispute, but I wasn’t a fan of Critchley’s opening piece (I have a half-written blog post to that effect), because it was ridiculous (philosophy is taking one’s time to fall in wells against authority which KILLS ) and violated my mother criterion.

Leiter complained about Critchley’s background (bona fides) and the opening piece. I’ll have to reread it (only skimmed it the first time) to refresh on its ridiculousness. But right now I’m reading the current entry on free will. – TL